According to the American Family Association, a shocking announcement made by the American Psychiatric Association (APA) in its latest edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders caused an uproar among pro-family organizations and many others, as the APA states it now classifies pedophilia as a sexual orientation or preference instead of a disorder.

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Who can watch the watchmen?"No one is paying attention to your post reports"Why do posters that claim to have me blocked keep sending me pms and responding to my posts? That makes no sense.

That would be quite disturbing, though, unfortunately, not surprising. American culture gets more and more sexually deranged. I hope Michael is right and this is a hoax. Would be a truly sick, twisted hoax at that.

Logged

Some of my questions might appear patently stupid to those well-versed in Orthodoxy, but I'm brand new, having no background in the faith. Please grant me a great deal of patience and consideration as I learn the basics.

In the case of pedophilic disorder, the notable detail is what wasn’t revised in the new manual. Although proposals were discussed throughout the DSM-5 development process, diagnostic criteria ultimately remained the same as in DSM-IV TR. Only the disorder name will be changed from pedophilia to pedophilic disorder to maintain consistency with the chapter’s other listings.

The AFA’s Cindy Roberts told Charisma News that its public relations firm, Hamilton Strategies, conducted the initial research on its claim. The PR firm has not responded to our requests for more information.

I see two components to this. To say that it is a sexual orientation may be a truth. However, the practicing of it would be absolutely wrong. Which means that pedophilia is an illness that needs to be treated, not condemned. Legally, pedophilia is a very serious crime against children and society, and is strictly forbidden and punished. Question is what do we mean by a "sexual orientation". Do we mean that it is a personal sexual preference, or do we also imply that it is acceptable? That it is "just" another orientation among "others"?

If it would ever get designated a sexual orientation in America, there would be legal implications. In the Equal Opportunity 'disclaimer,' (I can't remember what this is actually called) it says you can't discriminate based on many factors--gender, race, nationality, age, etc.

It also now says 'sexual orientation.' In designating pederasty a sexual orientation, it confers a certain degree of legitimacy, which is why I think everyone would rightfully be up in arms about that. The legal implication is that if they ever designated pederasty as a sexual orientation, you would now not be allowed to refuse to hire or to rent to a pedophile.

So they have to register as sex offenders, but you can't refuse them a job or an apartment? Yeah, this would definitely have to be a hoax, even without checking it out.

Logged

Some of my questions might appear patently stupid to those well-versed in Orthodoxy, but I'm brand new, having no background in the faith. Please grant me a great deal of patience and consideration as I learn the basics.

Read the original post and thought someone had, clinically speaking, flipped their lid.

A more concerning implication in the thread further on is the notion of this perversion becoming viewed as a 'sexual orientation', indeed as another contributor has noted this might carry some difficult legal implications.

Yes, any temptation is not a sin in itself but entertaining it, to phantasise on it or act upon such an impulse would. As to the last Our Saviour's own word's could not be clearer, "Better a millstone be tied round their neck....."

Read the original post and thought someone had, clinically speaking, flipped their lid.

A more concerning implication in the thread further on is the notion of this perversion becoming viewed as a 'sexual orientation', indeed as another contributor has noted this might carry some difficult legal implications.

Yes, any temptation is not a sin in itself but entertaining it, to phantasise on it or act upon such an impulse would. As to the last Our Saviour's own word's could not be clearer, "Better a millstone be tied round their neck....."

You know you set me up for a retort that would certainly get me banned if I said it?

According to something else I read about this, it's classified as an orientation if it's not "consumed" and an illness if "the relationship" is "consumed". And, it's an orientation because it cannot be changed through any known means -- that's the definition.

This could mean two things. 1) It's an illness that should not be condemned, but treated; and the practicing of it is strongly denied. 2) It is ok to have the orientation as long as you don't practice it. Not sure which one it's actually the one we are dealing with.

According to something else I read about this, it's classified as an orientation if it's not "consumed" and an illness if "the relationship" is "consumed". And, it's an orientation because it cannot be changed through any known means -- that's the definition.

This could mean two things. 1) It's an illness that should not be condemned, but treated; and the practicing of it is strongly denied. 2) It is ok to have the orientation as long as you don't practice it. Not sure which one it's actually the one we are dealing with.

Actually, it's 'consummated,' not 'consumed.' 'Consumed' would mean eaten or used up, exhausted as a resource.

We can treat those afflicted and still condemn pedophilia. And we should, imo, because the victim is always a child, and that's an immeasurable amount of fear and psychological damage that's done, each and every time. It's as though we're afraid to condemn things anymore. We're not supposed to judge sinners--we're not God. But we were never supposed to stop judging sin.

« Last Edit: November 01, 2013, 06:59:53 AM by newtoorthodoxy »

Logged

Some of my questions might appear patently stupid to those well-versed in Orthodoxy, but I'm brand new, having no background in the faith. Please grant me a great deal of patience and consideration as I learn the basics.

According to something else I read about this, it's classified as an orientation if it's not "consumed" and an illness if "the relationship" is "consumed". And, it's an orientation because it cannot be changed through any known means -- that's the definition.

This could mean two things. 1) It's an illness that should not be condemned, but treated; and the practicing of it is strongly denied. 2) It is ok to have the orientation as long as you don't practice it. Not sure which one it's actually the one we are dealing with.

Actually, it's 'consummated,' not 'consumed.' 'Consumed' would mean eaten or used up, exhausted as a resource.

We can treat those afflicted and still condemn pedophilia. And we should, imo, because the victim is always a child, and that's an immeasurable amount of fear and psychological damage that's done, each and every time. It's as though we're afraid to condemn things anymore. We're not supposed to judge sinners--we're not God. But we were never supposed to stop judging sin.

Good observation, my brain glitched and was sort of in Romanian mode when I used "consumed". Yes, pedophilia should be condemned because it is evil and immoral. But we can't expect this of science because it is the job of The Church. Science should just give us the facts and stop producing ideologies and determining what is good and what is evil. But see, science is adrift because it cut itself off from religion, and perhaps in part due to religion ignoring or undermining science.

Science should just give us the facts and stop producing ideologies and determining what is good and what is evil.

Awesome point!+1

+2

This is were what is presented as science is actually philosophy.

Science has philosophical assumptions.

Yet, science has to somehow prove them through scientific means. There is nothing wrong with philosophy, in fact it is very necessary. But, philosophy is largely missing as a valid field nowadays or is mixed together with science so that you don't know which is which. Actually, people can't seem to be able to discern between the two anymore = bad!

Some consequences:Naming someone a pedophile will no longer be an accurate description. Pedophilia is now officially just a curse word. Advocates will respond saying that there is no such a thing as pedophiles, just pedophilics and "adults who engage in intergenerational love are not obsessive or aggressive, therefore no pedophilics". Calling someone a pedophile or a group or congress as advocating pedophilia will be liable to moral abuse trials.

Some of the previous chapters on this long run to legalize pedophilia:

Many Energies, 3 Persons, 2 Natures, 1 God, 1 Church, 1 Baptism, and 1 Cup. The Son begotten only from the Father, the Spirit proceeding only from the Father, Each glorifying the Other. The Son sends the Spirit, the Spirit Reveals the Son, the Father is seen in the Son. The Spirit spoke through the Prophets and Fathers and does so even today.

Science should just give us the facts and stop producing ideologies and determining what is good and what is evil.

Awesome point!+1

+2

This is were what is presented as science is actually philosophy.

Science has philosophical assumptions.

Yet, science has to somehow prove them through scientific means. There is nothing wrong with philosophy, in fact it is very necessary. But, philosophy is largely missing as a valid field nowadays or is mixed together with science so that you don't know which is which. Actually, people can't seem to be able to discern between the two anymore = bad!

On your point about the mixing, confusing or transposing of scientific or philosophical concepts, I agree with you.

As to the wicked attempt to confuse and confound our long held abhorrence of adults having sex with children, the term inter-generational love is a pathetic and devious attempt to cover wrong doing. Contemptible.

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Who can watch the watchmen?"No one is paying attention to your post reports"Why do posters that claim to have me blocked keep sending me pms and responding to my posts? That makes no sense.

Some consequences:Naming someone a pedophile will no longer be an accurate description. Pedophilia is now officially just a curse word. Advocates will respond saying that there is no such a thing as pedophiles, just pedophilics and "adults who engage in intergenerational love are not obsessive or aggressive, therefore no pedophilics". Calling someone a pedophile or a group or congress as advocating pedophilia will be liable to moral abuse trials.

Some of the previous chapters on this long run to legalize pedophilia:

Some of my questions might appear patently stupid to those well-versed in Orthodoxy, but I'm brand new, having no background in the faith. Please grant me a great deal of patience and consideration as I learn the basics.

I think I'm confused. They think when an adult rapes a child, the adult is the victim?

Logged

Some of my questions might appear patently stupid to those well-versed in Orthodoxy, but I'm brand new, having no background in the faith. Please grant me a great deal of patience and consideration as I learn the basics.

Paedophilia (and its first cousin, ephebophilia) was acceptable practice for many centuries.* What else would you call marrying off underage girls to men old enough to be their grandfathers?

*In some places and cultures, it still is, but our focus here is the Christianised First World.

Logged

'Evil isn't the real threat to the world. Stupid is just as destructive as evil, maybe more so, and it's a hell of a lot more common. What we really need is a crusade against stupid. That might actually make a difference.'~Harry Dresden

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Who can watch the watchmen?"No one is paying attention to your post reports"Why do posters that claim to have me blocked keep sending me pms and responding to my posts? That makes no sense.

The power relationships between adult and child are never, ever equal. Sex between an adult and a child is ALWAYS wrong. The term Inter-generational sex is, as has already been pointed out, NewSpeak at it's very worst and most dangerous.

And where were these gems found? In the Guardian.

Underage in my understanding either refers to a legal definition, of being under the age of consent (to sex) or a clumsy way of saying 'child'.

The power relationships between adult and child are never, ever equal. Sex between an adult and a child is ALWAYS wrong. The term Inter-generational sex is, as has already been pointed out, NewSpeak at it's very worst and most dangerous.

And where were these gems found? In the Guardian.

+486

I see stuff more and more that just sends me off the rails. This issue is just another one. I wish they had monasteries for women. Really, we couldn't get much worse if we started running naked in the streets, eating babies.

Logged

Some of my questions might appear patently stupid to those well-versed in Orthodoxy, but I'm brand new, having no background in the faith. Please grant me a great deal of patience and consideration as I learn the basics.

Paedophilia (and its first cousin, ephebophilia) was acceptable practice for many centuries.* What else would you call marrying off underage girls to men old enough to be their grandfathers?

*In some places and cultures, it still is, but our focus here is the Christianised First World.

Define "underage".

Throughout the Middle Ages, the onset of menstruation definitely marked a girl as marriageable. That, of course, can vary widely between girls and locations (the warmer the climate, the earlier the event comes), but there are plenty of documented cases of 10-12-year-old brides.

Logged

'Evil isn't the real threat to the world. Stupid is just as destructive as evil, maybe more so, and it's a hell of a lot more common. What we really need is a crusade against stupid. That might actually make a difference.'~Harry Dresden

Paedophilia (and its first cousin, ephebophilia) was acceptable practice for many centuries.* What else would you call marrying off underage girls to men old enough to be their grandfathers?

*In some places and cultures, it still is, but our focus here is the Christianised First World.

Define "underage".

Throughout the Middle Ages, the onset of menstruation definitely marked a girl as marriageable. That, of course, can vary widely between girls and locations (the warmer the climate, the earlier the event comes), but there are plenty of documented cases of 10-12-year-old brides.

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Who can watch the watchmen?"No one is paying attention to your post reports"Why do posters that claim to have me blocked keep sending me pms and responding to my posts? That makes no sense.

Paedophilia (and its first cousin, ephebophilia) was acceptable practice for many centuries.* What else would you call marrying off underage girls to men old enough to be their grandfathers?

*In some places and cultures, it still is, but our focus here is the Christianised First World.

Define "underage".

Throughout the Middle Ages, the onset of menstruation definitely marked a girl as marriageable. That, of course, can vary widely between girls and locations (the warmer the climate, the earlier the event comes), but there are plenty of documented cases of 10-12-year-old brides.

That's wy calling it pedophilia might be mistaken.

Whatever you call it, giving a grown man a blessing to legally bed a 12-year-old is wrong.

Logged

'Evil isn't the real threat to the world. Stupid is just as destructive as evil, maybe more so, and it's a hell of a lot more common. What we really need is a crusade against stupid. That might actually make a difference.'~Harry Dresden

Paedophilia (and its first cousin, ephebophilia) was acceptable practice for many centuries.* What else would you call marrying off underage girls to men old enough to be their grandfathers?

*In some places and cultures, it still is, but our focus here is the Christianised First World.

Define "underage".

Throughout the Middle Ages, the onset of menstruation definitely marked a girl as marriageable. That, of course, can vary widely between girls and locations (the warmer the climate, the earlier the event comes), but there are plenty of documented cases of 10-12-year-old brides.

That's wy calling it pedophilia might be mistaken.

Whatever you call it, giving a grown man a blessing to legally bed a 12-year-old is wrong.

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Who can watch the watchmen?"No one is paying attention to your post reports"Why do posters that claim to have me blocked keep sending me pms and responding to my posts? That makes no sense.

Whatever you call it, giving a grown man a blessing to legally bed a 12-year-old is wrong.

+1,000

And if the 12-year-old can't refuse to marry, then there's no 'equal' or consent going on at all. It's rape.

Logged

Some of my questions might appear patently stupid to those well-versed in Orthodoxy, but I'm brand new, having no background in the faith. Please grant me a great deal of patience and consideration as I learn the basics.

Paedophilia (and its first cousin, ephebophilia) was acceptable practice for many centuries.* What else would you call marrying off underage girls to men old enough to be their grandfathers?

*In some places and cultures, it still is, but our focus here is the Christianised First World.

Define "underage".

Throughout the Middle Ages, the onset of menstruation definitely marked a girl as marriageable. That, of course, can vary widely between girls and locations (the warmer the climate, the earlier the event comes), but there are plenty of documented cases of 10-12-year-old brides.

That's wy calling it pedophilia might be mistaken.

Whatever you call it, giving a grown man a blessing to legally bed a 12-year-old is wrong.

Wrong - probably. Like 60-year-old marrying 25s.

But maybe not evil.

I don't know - Morgan Freeman and Anthony Hopkins were 60 when I was 25, and I wouldn't have refused to marry either of them.

Logged

'Evil isn't the real threat to the world. Stupid is just as destructive as evil, maybe more so, and it's a hell of a lot more common. What we really need is a crusade against stupid. That might actually make a difference.'~Harry Dresden

Whatever you call it, giving a grown man a blessing to legally bed a 12-year-old is wrong.

+1,000

And if the 12-year-old can't refuse to marry, then there's no 'equal' or consent going on at all. It's rape.

As the father and grandfather of girls, and having been involved in teams addressing child protection issues I know it is both morally wrong and a great evil with dreadful consequences. In societies were this disparity in age is not uncommon the death of pregnant girls whose bodies are not ready is too frequent and their suffering appalling. It is plainly wrong, as is the bedding of any child, boy or girl, by any adult, male or female. Nor is the emotional and psychological trauma to be underestimated.

Children's childhood is short enough, and they need to be allowed to mature physically and emotionally, as well as intellectually.

dude, what is it with you? You know that married men sexually abuse at a higher rate than priests, right?

Logged

"For, by its immensity, the divine substance surpasses every form that our intellect reaches. Thus we are unable to apprehend it by knowing what it is. Yet we are able to have some knowledge of it by knowing what it is not." - St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa contra gentiles, I, 14.

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Who can watch the watchmen?"No one is paying attention to your post reports"Why do posters that claim to have me blocked keep sending me pms and responding to my posts? That makes no sense.

dude, what is it with you? You know that married men sexually abuse at a higher rate than priests, right?

Chairman of RC Polish Episcopate Conference said in an interview children drag priests into pedophilia.

Victim-blaming is standard procedure in all kinds of rape.

Logged

'Evil isn't the real threat to the world. Stupid is just as destructive as evil, maybe more so, and it's a hell of a lot more common. What we really need is a crusade against stupid. That might actually make a difference.'~Harry Dresden

I think the age of the youngest side is what matters most. A 25 who wants to have a relationship with a 60-something is a young adult, but an adult already. In that case, I believe, it's more likely the 20-something will hurt the feelings of the 60-something than the other way round.

A 21 with and 11 would be a much smaller gap and still it is obviously an entirely different thing and it's very clear who will hurt who.

I don't know - Morgan Freeman and Anthony Hopkins were 60 when I was 25, and I wouldn't have refused to marry either of them.

Logged

Many Energies, 3 Persons, 2 Natures, 1 God, 1 Church, 1 Baptism, and 1 Cup. The Son begotten only from the Father, the Spirit proceeding only from the Father, Each glorifying the Other. The Son sends the Spirit, the Spirit Reveals the Son, the Father is seen in the Son. The Spirit spoke through the Prophets and Fathers and does so even today.